If there was ever a game that summed up my attitude to narrative and gameplay, it’s Failbetter Games’ Echo Bazaar, a browser game built around Twitter.  The gameplay in Echo Bazaar is virtually non-existent from a ‘hardcore gamer’ point of view, being based around grinding ’storylets’ to improve your skill, which unlocks new storylets, which you then grind into infinity.  Your success is determined randomly, and the advancement system designed so that trying a task that is easy for your skill level is just as rewarding as one that is nearly impossible.

And yet, I’m hooked; so much so that I’ve designed a table top role-playing game so I can play in with my friends.

So what is it about Echo Bazaar that is so compelling?  Well the answer is simple, the world that Failbetter Games has put together is so interesting, that the simplicity of the gameplay is irrelevant.  Without going into too much detail – and trust me, I really could – Echo Bazaar is an alternate history where London was pulled down below the ground by enigmatic and ancient supernatural forces.  In the perpetual darkness of the city, now called Fallen London, death is temporary and hell is very close indeed.

The game casts you a rogue, lying, cheating, seducing and sometimes killing as you make your fortune in the fallen city and investigating all the nooks and crannies that make up the game world is simply fascinating.  I will often forgive a game for less-than-amazing gameplay if the story is good, and nothing exemplifies that like Echo Bazaar.

As well as my news and feature articles, I write a small column on Pocket Gamer on behalf of The Escapist.  This week’s topic is feature lists and how bigger isn’t always better

“It’s common for sequels to try and be bigger and better than their predecessors. Take the two Knights of the Old Republic games, for example: in the first, you fought against a Sith Lord with a huge fleet at his command, but in the second you fought against a Sith Lord who could destroy planets with his mind.  The desire to make a sequel bigger and better than its predecessor is understandable, but all too often this escalation can cause creators to lose sight of the essence of a project.”

You can read the rest of the article here.

It’s been a while since I’ve posted, but that’s because I’ve been rather busy. I’ve written two feature articles for The Escapist, the first entitled Getting Back in the Game, talking about how games helped me in the recent breakdown of my marriage, and the second called Journey Into Darkness, a look at the storytelling in Starbreeze’s action-shooter “The Darkness”

Oh, and I was in this video as well:

As excited as I am about Super Street Fighter IV, Capcom seems to be stretching the definition of ’street’ here.

Like about a gajillion other people, I loved Iron Man.  It’s probably my favourite comic book based movie in recent year, even beating out the colossus of The Dark Knight, and all reports suggest that Iron Man 2 was going to just as good.  After watching the official trailer however – as seen above – I must admit to being concerned.   Don’t get me wrong, everything in there looks super exciting, but there sure is a lot of it.

That probably seems like a very weird complaint, but Marvel movies have a nasty tendency to stuff way too much content into sequels, which ultimately hurts the film as no single plot line gets enough screen time, and viewers are instead left with a collection of rushed sub plots.  It happened with Spiderman 3 with Venom and it happened with X-Men 3 with, well, with pretty much everything that happens in the movie.

In just that trailer alone, you’ve got at least two new characters – Black Widow and Whiplash – and at least three separate plot lines.  How much time are they really going to be able to set aside for the War Machine plot line for example, if they also trying to tell the story of Tony Stark’s battle with the US Government and the antagonism between Stark’s family and Whiplash, and introducing Black Widow and Justin Hammer?

It’s not impossible that they could make this all work, and I very much hope I’m wrong, but this happens enough in Marvel movies that I’m almost ready to come up with a snappy title for the trend.  I think I’ll default to cautiousness and just hope to be proven wrong.

BioWare is one of those companies whose games I buy sight unseen.  I don’t need to know what it’s about, just the fact that it’s a BioWare game is enough for me.  It’s a bit sad then, that Dragon Age has made me question that policy, just a little bit.  Don’t get me wrong, Dragon Age is a good game and I’m enjoying myself a great deal, but I’ve come to expect more from BioWare.

Dragon Age is a strange game to play, because it represents BioWare trying something new, but also BioWare adhering rigidly to the formula they’ve worked from for the last ten years.  The world that Bioware has created for the game is significantly darker than anything it’s done before; it’s a world of betrayal, prejudice, war and copious arterial spray.  Sadly, it all comes off as a little drab, with none of the splendour that characterises the fantasy genre and while it’s new ground for BioWare, it’s not new ground for games, as the Witcher beat them to it by a couple of years, and did it with more conviction too.

Oh yeah, Orzimmar is Ironforge.  Don’t think I didn’t notice, BioWare.

But while the world that BioWare has created is a departure for the company, the story that it created is not.  You are a fighter/mage/rogue, more capable than your youth would suggest, recruited to join the Grey Wardens and stand against the evil Darkspawn hordes.  Replace Grey Wardens with Jedi or Spectres, and Darkspawn – itself a singularly unimaginative name – with Sith or Geth, and the formula becomes obvious:  unusually capable hero + elite organisation + objectively evil army = BioWare game.  It’s the same story with the characters you meet; they’re all well written and well acted, but I’m sure I’ve met them somewhere before.

By the way BioWare, I liked Farscape too, but casting Claudia Black to play Aeryn Sun again is maybe taking it a bit far.

I can forgive the slightly formulaic nature of the story however, because while It’s not new story, it is one that I like.  What really lets Dragon Age down and actually makes it frustrating to play is the lacklustre combat.  There are many things I expect from a BioWare game, and tedious micro-management in combat is not of them.  As much as I like Alistair, in combat he is a moron, and forcing me to spend skill points, that I would much rather spend on herbalism or trap making or anything else, so that I can enact anything beyond the most rudimentary tactics is not compelling game design.

Also, regularly throwing up fights where we are outnumbered three to one, and then telling us to not let ourselves get surrounded is a little galling.

What’s really confusing is why BioWare has stuck this unimpressive tactics game on an otherwise decent RPG.  The only thing I can think of is that it is trying to replicate the gameplay of Baldur’s Gate, in which case, it’s memories of the game differ significantly from my own.  The Baldur’s Gate that I remember – which is actually BGII if I’m honest – was a game where the AI was smart enough to take care of itself for the most part, and only very occasionally, usually in a ‘boss fight’, did I have to control each character individually.  In Dragon Age I seem to be constantly pausing and directing, which is a first for me in a BioWare game, and not something I especially care for.

As I said, I’m enjoying Dragon Age a great deal, but I’m enjoying it despite of BioWare’s best efforts, not because of it.